Although I agree with your assessment, the part you quoted, was actually from one of my posts. mhz has a comprehension issue, and struggles with the quote features of most forum boards.
I hate it when that happens. I wonder why he didn't pick up that you had posted those very words just before my reply. While we aren't likely to see eye-to-eye on anything please believe me when I say I would never, ever take anything you come up with and try to pass it off as being my own personal view. lol
You may want to actually research some of the sh!t you post before you post it mhz. Turner Construction has just completed 30 new schools around the US, just in time for the fall semester.
That's fine, have they done any demo work since then? A real windfall, renovations before the disaster and then get 1/4 of the cleanup costs.
You're showing your lack of understanding of the construction of the WTC here.
I'm not claiming to be smarter than the designers, why shouldn't I take them at their word when they say the building was designed to survive an airliner strike? They compare it to a hole in a mosquito net.
How much fuel was burnt outside the buildings. In the 2nd strike how much fuel is required to produce a fireball that size. In that strike it is unlikely much of the plane even touched the actual core, let alone left an fire that 'raging', black smoke indicates a poorly burning fire. The soot created would actually act as in insulator if it got very deep.
Again, a comment exposing your lack of knowledge. Please do some research. I have provided two free online books you can read.
Well here is a chance to show the world your ability to makes things simple so somebody like me can understand it. Otherwise you get to wait till years while I study those and all other books written about steely stuff.
Say a strong steady wind was blowing against a wide side of wtc1 or 2. The top would be under the most stress and it would want to move in the direction of the wind forever. What stops the forever and allows 'a certain set amount depending on the strength of the wind' that allows the building to sway and not topple over. The sideways extra load the wind causes is absorbed by the steel outer perimiter. On the lee side the steel in under compression and in the windward side it is under resistance to expansion. The core would only act is the fulcrum and its main duty is still to hold the structure up, rather than eliminate any slight side to side motion.
8O Are you suggesting that they were vapourized? By aliens maybe?
Most 'collapses' that are similar in still leave a mound when things quit moving. This is clearly a hole.
More like something like this.
(in part)
?: Well Larry, I’d rather not give out my name as I am really here representing all of the fine scientists at NIST that studied just what happened to the Twin Towers on 9/11 and I don’t want to be given any undue credit. So let’s not give out my name.
LK: Very well then, how about we call you Mr. Generic NIST? We’ll refer to you tonight as GNIST. Why don’t you tell us how this debate came about and start presenting your side of the issue. I’m told your opponent will be here shortly and is able to listen in so he won’t miss anything.
GNIST: Larry, you had a debate last week between Willie Nelson and Bill Maher that brought a very large number of inquiries about the collapse of the Twin Towers. Many questions came in asking how dust could have caused the collapses. They said that we, NIST, claimed it was all of the weight from the highest 20 or so stories that entirely pummeled both buildings. Well, we did pretty much make that claim that it was indeed all of the weight of the approximately top 20 per cent of the buildings.
Now, Willie Nelson comes on your show and makes what would seem to have been a very astute observation. He said that as the Towers collapsed, virtually everything was being turned into fine floating powder, or dust, right from the
very beginning of the collapses. And he was correct. It is well known that not just all of the concrete, but all of the filing cabinets, chairs, computers, telephones, and everything else, including all of the people, were pulverized into all of that fine floating dust/powder that covered Manhattan inches deep. Then he said, he couldn’t understand how all of the weight that was being instantly transformed into fine
floating dust could -- “squish” was the word I think he used -- how floating dust could squish through the entire building? But “squish” it did. The reason I say Willie made a “seemingly astute obervation” is that on the face of it, it does seem to be a bit ludicrous that dust could crush, squish if you’d like, the entire building. But you have to look behind the face Larry. This wasn’t ordinary dust, it was dust made from concrete. And what everyone needs to understand is that concrete dust is Heavy Dust...... Concrete dust is Heavy Dust ... Concrete dust is Heavy Dust. Now I hope your viewers let that sink in right away and don’t ever question the fact that .... Concrete Dust is Heavy Dust. All of us at NIST thought it very important to get the word out ... Concrete dust is Heavy Dust ... before everybody started thinking that Willie Nelson might be right: floating fine dust can’t push its way through 90 floors of heavily steel reinforced construction that was meant to withstand eathquakes, hurricanes, and the impacts of great big airplanes. And just to further my point of how heavy concrete dust is Larry, those Towers collapsed WITHOUT SLOWING DOWN and they did it, like Willie said, about as fast as a falling apple -- what we like to call “free-fall” speed. How is THAT for proving just how heavy concrete dust is?
OpEdNews - Diary: 9/11 NIST: Heavy Dust Brought Down Twin Towers - Debate Hosted by Larry King
